Monday, July 31, 2017

A Look At the Evidence #5: Were They Really That Bad

It is part of the official narrative that the police
investigation was sloppy. Bugliosi notes multiple occasions where, in his
opinion, the police made mistakes that affected the investigation and the trial.
Some of these criticisms are legitimate but some are not.

Failure to Connect the Two Crime Scenes

The homicide investigators assigned to the Cielo Drive crime
scene didn’t communicate well (if at all) with the team assigned to the
LaBianca crime scene. And even though both teams reported to a higher authority
that authority, we are told by Bugliosi, bungled connecting the two crimes.

_____

“Yet within twenty-four hours the police would decide there
was no connection between the two sets of murders.”

If this is an accurate statement one has to ask how they could possibly reach this conclusion? How could they miss all of the similarities? Especially when one detective was at both crime scenes.

_____

“Lieutenant Madlock phoned Inspector K. J. McCauley and
requested that the investigation be assigned to Homicide Division. Inspector
McCauley assigned the responsibility for the investigation to Robbery Homicide
Division. Lieutenant R. J. Helder, Supervisor of Investigations,
Robbery-Homicide Division, was contacted and notified of the above crime and
decision as to the responsibility for the investigation. He assigned the case
to Sergeants M. J. McGann, and J. Buckles. He also called three additional
investigators to assist in a crime scene search and investigation. Sergeants E.
Henderson, D. Varney and D. Galindo were assigned this responsibility.

Lieutenant Helder and the assigned investigators responded
to the scene, arriving at various times between 1330 and 1430 hours.

Sergeant Danny Galindo was present at both crime scenes from
the outset and, we have to assume from Bugliosi's comment, apparently saw absolutely nothing that would suggest to him that
the two crimes were related. But is that an accurate description?

Despite
Bugliosi’s claim, the police had already determined that there might be a

connection between the two crimes.

The image to the right is the page of the LA Times from
August 17, 1969 that links everything together. On the right top column is an
update on the Tate murders. In the lower right hand column is an update on the
LaBianca murders and in the center is the Spahn Ranch raid.

By this point at least connections between the two crimes were
noted by the police and the article even refers to the LaBianca murders as ‘copycat’ murders (the
obvious source being the police) who noted the similarities to the Tate
murders.

[Aside: The coincidence of these three stories being on this
page has always struck me as one of the more almost 'mystical' events associated with
these crimes. It is almost as if someone (or something) was trying to tell the
investigators where to look.]

And, in fact, the police were discussing connections between
the crimes contrary to Bugliosi's comment.

“There is a similarity [between the two crimes], but whether it’s the same suspect or
a copycat we just don’t know.” Said Police Sgt. Bryce Houchin.” (Progress
Bulletin, Monday, August 11, 1969)

“Of the connection between the murders in Bendict Canyon and
in Silverlake, Detective Sgt. Danny Galindo said, ‘it is possible that somebody
is cashing in on some of the publicity from the earlier case but there are
other schools of thought.’” (The San Mateo Times, Monday, August 11, 1969)

Even the article cited by Bugliosi in Helter Skelter refutes his statement.

“Police said it [the writing on the wall] was the same
technique used by the Benedict Canyon slayer to smear the word ‘pig’ on the
door of Miss Tate’s home- a fact disclosed after the Los Feliz murders were
discovered.

The bloody inscription, the hood, and the atrocious nature
of the wounds all indicated a connection with the earlier crime, police said.” (LA
Times, Monday, August 11, 1969)

Conclusion: Bugliosi is wrong. The police did recognize connections
between the two crimes from the outset. My hunch is that the reason they were not even
more vocal was to preserve certain aspects of the two crimes in order to
reserve things ‘only the murder(s) would know' since so much had been leaked to the press. We know the Beatles connection
was identified early on by the LaBianca team but that, for example, was never
mentioned to the press and probably led to Bugliosi's investigation of that issue.

Lack of Sub-typing the Blood

Bugliosi called Manuel Joseph Granado of SID to task for not
subtyping many of the blood samples.

“Granado took a total of forty-five blood samples [at Cielo
Drive]. However, for some reason never explained, he didn’t run subtypes on
twenty-one of them. If this is not done a week or two after collection, the
components of the blood break down. Later, when an attempt was made to
re-create the murders, these omissions would cause many problems.

In 1969 sub-typing the blood at this crime scene could only
be accomplished using the M-N-MN subtype because the blood was dry.

____

Q: And there are also sub-blood types; is that correct?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Numerous sub-blood types; is that correct?

A: There are some 30.

Q: However, when the blood is dry, then there are only three
sub-blood types; is that correct?

A: No, there are more, but there are only three that have
been proven by experimental evidence.

Q: And those three sub-blood types or dried blood are M, N
and MN; is that correct?

A: Yes, that is correct.

_____

Granado used the subtype test he was supposed to use and by a strange accident he sub-typed all of the type O blood samples he found except
one: “G43: Violet colored ribbons found on side of door near blood splatters,
human blood- type O.” He sub-typed none of the type B blood samples at Cielo
Drive.

Why Granado failed to M-N-MN subtype the type B blood he
found at the scene is explained by Granado, contrary to Bigliosi’s assertion. It was not standard operating procedure in 1969.

____

Q: When you take samples of blood from the scene of a
homicide, is it customary in homicide investigations to get sub blood types?

A: No, it is not.

Q: But you did do it in this case in certain situations?

A: Yes. We tried to do it in certain situations where the
bloods are all the same. We tried to obtain another characteristic for further
pinning down the particular individual.

____

I can’t agree with Bugliosi. Granado followed procedure and
actually exceeded it to try to sort out the mess that confronted him at Cielo
Drive.

Bugliosi also claims this on the same topic:

“Granado took blood samples from the rope, but didn’t take
subtypes, again presuming.”

“G-28. Rope (nylon type found over beam and attached to
Sebring and Tate)

human blood. O-M”

(Report to Captain Don A. Martin Commander, SID DR#69-059
593)

My review of Granado’s testimony at the trial also failed to
identify any problem caused by this ‘omission’. In fact, the defense never
asked Granado a single question about the blood typing.

Conclusion: Not an error.

No Samples of Blood Taken from Victim Locations

Again, Bugliosi takes a shot at Granado.

_____

“Nor did he [Granado] take samples from the pools of blood
in the immediate vicinity of the two bodies in the living room, or from the
stains near the two bodies on the lawn, presuming, he’d later testify, that
they belonged to the nearest victims, and he’d be getting samples from the
coroner anyway.”

It appears Granado may have actually taken or at least tried
to take these samples.

Granado testified that he did not take samples from near
Frykowski and Folger for the reason stated by Bugliosi. He was not asked why. Contrary to Bugliosi’s comment
suggesting otherwise, he was never asked about samples taken from near the
bodies of Tate and Sebring.

It appears that the truth of the matter may be that
Granado tried to take samples from near Folger and Frykowski’s bodies. The The
First Homicide Investigation Progress Report also suggests that Granado actually took
blood samples from near the bodies of Tate and Sebring.

_____

“Going in a northwesterly direction from where Frykowski's
body was found (Addendum 1B ) two large blood spots were found. Scientific
Investigation Division has been unable to type this blood; however, it is the
opinion of the investigating officers that these two large pools of blood are
areas where Frykowski lay for moments in his attempt to escape from his
assailants. It is possible that a struggle with the assailants occurred at
these two locations.”

*****

“Blood around area of Polanski's body and Sebring's body and
rope which they were tied with, type O.”

(First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report- emphasis added)

_____

These samples, like another mentioned later on, do not appear in
Granado’s report to Captain Martin. Did Granado take these samples and lose the
record? Maybe and, of course, that would be a pretty big error.

In my opinion, this error, if made, however, is minor. Contrary to
Bugliosi’s claim it didn’t impact the investigation or the trial and would not
have led to an arrest any faster nor would it have helped 'recreate the crime'.

Bugliosi also hints that Granado relied upon the coroner for the
blood types of the victims. While he did receive the coroner’s typing on each
victim he also received their blood and ran his own test including the M-N-MN
subtyping because he knew his samples were dried blood and he needed that to proceed.

Finally, it appears that this ‘mistake’ might not even be considered
a 'mistake' by crime scene investigators today.

_____

“Occasionally, investigators blindly collect blood samples
from a scene without any thought about the facts they are trying to establish.
An example is a crime scene consisting of the body of a shooting victim found
alone in his residence. Some investigators will collect several blood samples
from around the body. This is unnecessary since it will only establish that the
victim bled at the scene of the crime. This fact is already proven by the
presence of the body; however, one sample of pooled blood next to the body can
be collected to confirm the results obtained from the victim's reference blood
sample.” (George Schiro, Forensic Scientist, Louiisiana State Police Crime
Laboratory, “Collection and Preservation of Blood Evidence from Crime Scenes”)

_____

Conclusion: Not an error.

Steven Parent’s Car

I read somewhere (not in Helter Skelter) that Granado failed to type blood at
Parent’s car that could have been important. I am sorry, I don't remember where and couldn't find it when I wrote this.

Granado typed the blood on the steering wheel and the dash (G36
and G37 in his report). Granado also found blood in insufficient quantities to type on the
inside and outside door handles of Steven Parent’s car as he testified.

_____

A: G41, also in the automobile, was on the inside and
outside door handles of the Parent vehicle, and there was insufficient material
for typing or human, but I got a positive benzidine reaction at the

scene.

____

To me this is interesting. The inside handle may be
explained by Parent’s wounds. I have a harder type visualizing how blood could
get to the outside door handle unless it was transferred there from another
location such as Parent’s hand or the hand of one of the killers opening the
door (perhaps to retrieve his wallet, unsuccessfully or to turn off the
ignition).

Insufficient quantities are not Granado’s fault.

Conclusion: Not an error.

The Blood in the Garage

The narrative on this says there was blood in the garage
that was never typed. At least one author has also made this same claim.

This blood is used by some to suggest that Parent was
attacked near the garage before he entered his car. This is when, it is argued,
his hand was slashed (of course the theory ignores the watch on the back seat
with the severed band pictured to the right).

The ‘blood in the garage’ theory originates with John W.
Finken an investigator (or deputy coroner) for the LA coroner’s office and
appears in the autopsy report of Sharon Tate. The relevant portion is pictured
to the below.

Finken arrived on the scene at 2:15 p.m. four hours after Granado.
Granado makes no mention of blood in the ‘open garage’. The Homicide Report
does not mention blood in the garage. No witness who was present at the crime
scene (and testified at the trial) mentions blood being found or suspected in
the garage.

Finken was a problem for Bugliosi during the trial because
he wrote a series of unnecessary comments on Sharon Tate’s autopsy report.
These comments were his inaccurate (or misleading) personal theory of the
case. Here are some samples:

“Apparently entertaining a mixed group of 4 young people
at/in her luxurious, avant garde, ranch-estate type home.”

“The party was noticed by neighbors**** during [word I can’t
read] afternoon into early evening.”

“House doors opened + some lights yet on- windows ajar.”

“No weapons or suspects in custody”

Nothing I have found independently corroborates the claim
there was blood in the garage.

Conclusion: Not an error.

The Gate Button

Bugliosi took Officer DeRosa to task for obliterating ‘Tex’
Watson’s fingerprint on the gate button.

Thanks Cielodrive.com

“Officer DeRosa, who was charged with securing and
protecting the scene until investigating officers arrived, now pressed the
button himself, successfully opening the gate but also creating a

Q: So you have a recollection of picking up your purse, is
that right?

A (Winifred Chapman): Oh, yes.

Q: And what happened next?

A: I ran out, and of course, I had to push a button to get
out the gate and – I went to the first neighbor’s house. I did not get in.

_____

It wasn’t the DeRosa. It was Ms. Chapman.

Conclusion: Not an error.

Moving Evidence

“Two pieces of gun grip, first seen near the entryway, were
now under a chair in the living room. As stated in the official LAPD report:
“They were apparently kicked under the chair by one of the original officers on
the scene; however, no one is copping out.”

The gun grips aren’t the only piece of evidence that appears
to have moved during the crime scene investigation.

_____

SUSAN ATKINS: And I reached down and turned my head away and
touched her chest to get some blood and proceeded to go to the door and the
only thing I remember being instructed to write on the door was “Pig” so I
proceeded to take my hand and write “Pig” with the towel and threw the towel
back and ran outside. (Susan Atkins’ Interview by Caruso and Caballero,
December 1, 1969 thanks to Cielodrive.com)

I held the towel in my hand and stood there for a few
minutes. I did not know what to do. I turned around and threw the towel towards
the living room area where Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring were lying. (Susan
Atkins’ Grand Jury Testimony, December 5, 1969 thanks to Cielodrive.com)

“She [Chapman] then looked down at the front porch and entry
hall and saw pools of blood and a blood-spattered yellow towel.”

_____

For as long as I have been lurking around blogs about this
case Susan Atkins’ amazing towel throw has been a talking point now and again
because some erroneously assume that the towel wrapped around Jay Sebring’s
head under the rope is the towel used to write pig on the door. It’s not.

Two other towels checked by Granado could be the suspect.

G-39: Beige towel found in living room. Checked 11 separate
spots and found them all to be human blood. Two spots tested for sub-type. Type
O-M (Sharon Tate).

I believe the actual writing instrument was the yellow towel
because the beige towel had “11 separate spots” which doesn’t sound like the right
instrument. The beige towel, however, may have been one Atkins placed over
Tate’s head, perhaps in an effort to create a scene similar to the one
involving Sebring.

_____

RICHARD CABALLERO: What did they pull over her head?

SUSAN ATKINS: They didn’t put anything over their heads.
They didn’t have anything over their heads when we left, except Sharon Tate – I
threw a towel over her head.

(Susan Atkins’ Interview by Caruso and Caballero, December
1, 1969 thanks to Cielodrive.com)

_____

What is interesting about the yellow towel is that, like the
gun grip, it appears to have moved during the investigation. Granado places the yellow towel in the
living room near the trunks (above).

Chapman placed the towel almost in the front hall, which
again is near the trunks.

_____

“She [Chapman] then looked down at the front porch and entry
hall and saw pools of blood and a blood-spattered yellow towel.” (First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report)

_____

But that is not where the police found the towel.

_____

“Officers observed a yellow towel with blood splatters near
the hearth in the living room. This has been typed as O blood.” (First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report)

_____

I could see some officer not paying attention and accidently
kicking the gun grip under a chair. I can’t imagine how the yellow towel moved
from near the trunks at the entry way to near the hearth without someone
picking it up and physically moving it there.

Conclusion: Both the gun grip and the yellow towel are errors (although, again, due to the defense,
they had no impact on the trial).

The North End of the Porch

Bugliosi, by accident, had the picture of the broken bush on
the north end of the porch. I say ‘by accident’ because the photo was taken, at
Granado’s direction, of the blood, not the bushes. Some of Kasabian’s strongest
testimony related to Frykowski falling into these bushes because the physical
evidence, the broken bushes, corroborates her testimony. His blood at this
location would further corroborate her.

_____

“My concern here was that those samples he had taken matched
in type and subtype the blood of Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring, although there
was no evidence that either had run out the front door. While I could argue to
the jury that the killers, or Frykowski himself, had tracked out the blood, I
could foresee the defense using this to cast doubt on Linda’s story, so I asked
Joe: ‘You don’t know if the random sampling is representative of the blood type
of the whole area here?’

Q: Now, right adjacent to the bush or bushes,
Officer, you see what appears to be a large amount of blood; is that
correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you take any sample of blood from that
area?

A: No. I have none. I have checked my book
and I haven’t seen any from that area.

Q: Any particular…..

[Kanarak objects]

A: I did not find any from that particular
area.

Q: You did not find any or you did not take
any?

A: I did not take any.

Q: You did not take any sample of the blood
from the pool of blood adjacent to the bushes here?

A: That is correct.

Q: Was there any particular reason for that?

A: No. At the time I guess I assumed all of
the blood was of similar origin.

Q: From one and the same person?

A: Yes.

[Aside: My next question would have been ‘why on
earth would you assume that?’ You can almost hear Bugliosi thinking 'you have
got to be kidding me!']

_____

But this one gets stranger. The First Homicide Investigation Progress Report suggests that Granado may, indeed, have taken a sample from this
location, which would explain the photograph.

_____

“This would be consistent with the fact that Sebring had a
large abrasion to the bridge of his nose and when discovered had a large
hematoma swelling and bruising of the left eye. The large pool of blood which
is described as on the front porch, approximately 6 inches south of the north
edge of the porch is Sebring's type, O-MN. Directly north-east and just off of
the porch is a small hedge which was broken down as if someone had lain there
for some time.”

_____

That would mean Granado lost the test results or misplaced
them (or mislabeled them) by the time he testified a year later.

This one is a mistake any way you look at it. Granado either
took the sample and lost the results or never took a sample. This blood stain
is large and should have been tested, especially since he was sub-typing the
blood on the porch to figure out the sources for the various bloodstains. This error also could have been
used to try to impeach Kasabian.

Conclusion: Error.

Saved by the not so Dream Team

After Granado’s direct examination by Bugliosi the defense
team cross examined him. They asked him about the bloody
cloths, Atkins’ hair follicle test, the leather ‘laces’, 'benzadine' tests and
practically everything else under the sun except any of the mistakes mentioned
in this post. Not a single question.

When Granado took the stand on August 25, 1970 at least one
of the members of that brain trust (sarcasm intended) called the defense team
should have recognized that they had one serious problem: they needed to challenge
Linda Kasabian’s testimony. Bugliosi was afraid this would happen, look at his
quote above. He should have been right.

This witness, the state’s expert witness, the state’s
scientist just told the jury Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring’s blood was on the
front porch [subject for another post, by the way] and Frykowski’s was not,
which means Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring were on that front porch and Frykowski
was not. This is a win-win situation for the defense.

Garnado made a mistake, which allows them to argue
‘what other mistakes were made by the police and more
importantly it allows them to attack Kasabian’s story directly.

It allows them to call into question a key piece of her
narrative by placing two people on the porch where she only saw a third.

They would have had to have set up the testimony through
Kasabian but could have done that by simply having her reiterate her story on
cross examination. They saw the blood report in advance. They knew what Granado had to say
when he took the stand.

It is actually rather simple: just have her repeat her story on
cross examination:

She left the immediate crime scene and then supposedly
returned. You do this to set up the thought that she didn’t, in fact, return. You do that because the Granada evidence contradicts her.

Then place her standing at the “LK arrow". From there she
could see the porch clearly.

Then get her to confirm she didn’t see what the state’s
expert will say must have happened.

Granado on cross examination then says that the one person
Kasabian says she saw on the front porch wasn’t there. Where’s Frykowski’s
blood?

Instead they did nothing. Why? Well, Fitzgerald tells us why:

_____

Bugliosi: Your Honor, that is a misstatement now. I think
Mr. Fitzgerald knows when you say ‘animal,” you are not referring to a human
being. I am going to object o that ground. It is a deliberate effort, I think,
to get this witness confused.

Mr. Fitzgerald: I don’t know enough to confuse him.

The Court: Overruled.

_____

[Aside: At the very end of Granado's testimony the following discussion ensues.

Mr. Kanarek: Your Honor, before he is excused may we
approach the bench, Your Honor?

The Court: Very well.

*****

Kanarek: I would make a motion and request that Mr. manson
be allowed to ask the witness several questions in connection with this matter.

The Court: That is not my point. What I am asking you is,
why should he be permitted to ask questions rather than you?

Mr. Kanarek: Because of the right to effective counsel, your
Honor. [Given Kanarek’s performance a very good point.]

*****

The Court: Any reason you cannot ask the questions?

Mr. Kanarek: No, but he has a desire to do this. I can see
no harm coming by asking the questions, a couple of questions of this witness. [It
certainly can't be worse then you four.]

The Court: The motion is denied.

Maybe Manson was the only one to recognize the problems with Granado's testimony.]

Bugliosi exaggerated the mistakes made by the police in Helter Skelter. He later takes credit for fixing the problems or avoiding their impact at
trial or uses them to demonstrate how much more difficult his task was in
securing a conviction because of police errors. Did the police make errors? Yes, they did. But they
didn’t make several of those claimed by Bugliosi.

Another question ive had for awhile were Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkel and Kasabians blood ever taken and typed? Seems to me it might aid in the investigation of events, im not sure what the laws are regarding collecting blood from suspects

To the first point I would add Hinman. Also very similar in a stabbing with bloody messaging on wall. If they had even thought to put the three of them together they would have had somewhere to start as far as one person already in jail. Had they looked closer at him and his associates....

Who knows.

It always amazed me that all the crimes were so similiar in style, level of viciousness, and execution down to the bloody writing on walls - committed by same group of people- never were thought of as potentially tied.

It's easy to see why people make the copy cat argument. They always did things the same basic way. Break in. Use a gun to threaten. Stab victims multiple times. Write on wall in victims blood.

How often could that have been happening in that short a period in that close an area?

Last time I checked, the right perpetrators were caught, and imprisoned for life for crimes so atrocious, it's beyond understanding. Bugliosi was the main prosecutor. So....what's the problem? He catches a lot of flak, and sometimes I wonder if it is because of his arrogance, his exaggerations, or the mere fact that he was able to get convictions for these people? If he hadn't ever had that book come out, would he still be as hated? I know when he was alive, he came across as a not very likable person, but isn't that what makes a good attorney? He represented "the man" in all his glory, but if it wasn't for him, the possibility of these murderers walking free was high. How many more people could've ended up hacked to death, if they hadn't been stopped? Interesting post, btw.....

David -- pretty much agree with your assessments all the way but one thing that's always amazed me is how the police/detectives and even Bugs were able to put together any kind of a prosecution in short time given this still was a huge city where other crimes at variable levels were occurring daily, the technologies (communications) were not nearly what we have today, and most importantly coming into it all ** stone cold ** ... that is, not knowing who was who, why, etc. So it took them a little time to figure out who and what the hell was going on .... that was not a gen-x push-button instant-gratification everyone-gets-a-prize or medal era.

Susan said: "Problem is you didnt post the picture of it, its on Cielo drive.com, theres a picture of a guy kneeling down pointing at the drops right next to the Camaro"

You are referring to this photo: http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/sharon-tate-camaro.php

The officer top the left, from my review is not pointing to anything. I believe this photo was taken to record the license plate. And I am quite sure the LAPD searched every square inch of Cielo Drive. But there is no reference to blood in the garage that I have been able to find except Finken's comment.

Ann said: "Last time I checked, the right perpetrators were caught, and imprisoned for life for crimes so atrocious, it's beyond understanding. Bugliosi was the main prosecutor. So....what's the problem?"

I have no problem with Bugliosi as a trial lawyer- in trial. He completely 'out lawyered' his opponents. He was very good and, yes, he got the right guys. No problem here with that.

I believe there are, for example, two times in the trial when he corrects the silent "G", once during the trial (Kanarek I believe) and once during a pretrial motion (Fitzgerald I believe). Both times the point being made by the defense is 'lost' (they forget what they are saying or the judge loses interest) and both times he 'wins' the point. Did he do it just to correct the pronunciation of his name? In my opinion- nope. He did it to throw off his opponents. And that is damn good lawyering.

My problem is that he uses the police 'errors' in his book to enhance the appearance of his own performance and I just don't think the 'biggest' of those errors occurred.

Ok but whst about the blood? I suppose it could be paint or oil but there are what appears to be alot of drops of something on the ground, Rudi didnt seem to be the type of guy to let spilled paint just sit there and dry in his garage like that and i dont remember reading anything about the garage being painted around that time

Also why would Finken list it as blood in the report? Thats a huge thing, not like the other little "opinions" he wrote in the report, those can be written off as minor statenents made by an inquisitive investigator but the blood is huge it would change the sequence of events

While there were alot of similarities in the two cases there were even more differences in my opinion, different age groups, different social circles, no KNOWN drug use or connections with Labianca, different means of entry, no disabling of phone service at Waverly, no rope at Waverly, no gun at Waverly, no fingerprints that im aware of at Waverly, killers obviously in no rush at Waverly as opposed to Cielo where the slaughter was brief and furious and probably most of all you have a budding Hollywood starlet married to a famous director involved in "questionable" lifestyles ie drugs, weird sex, etc and a quiet upper middle class conservative couple in Los Feliz

Robert it doesnt surprise me at all when you take into account Atkins blabbing details only the killers would know to cellmates at Sybil Brand, when she did that in my opinion she handed Bugliosi 75 percent of the case

were Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkel and Kasabians blood ever taken and typed?

Given that Watson and Krenwinkel's prints were there and Atkins & Kasabian admitted they were there, was there any point ?That said, I once wondered if they could have matched the prints of Atkins' foot but after early November there was no need. She was blabbing for all it was worth.

Pax Vobiscum said...

Bugliosi notes multiple occasions where, in his opinion, the police made mistakes that affected the investigation and the trial

And therein lies the key ~ "in his opinion." We might look at something with 48 years hindsight and say that it couldn't possibly have affected the investigation but I guess because he was the one saying that some things made the case difficult for him, well, then those things made it difficult for him.

By this point at least connections between the two crimes were noted by the police and the article even refers to the LaBianca murders as ‘copycat’ murders (the obvious source being the police) who noted the similarities to the Tate murders

But isn't that kind of the point ~ that copycat murders generally aren't connected, they're copied.Jess Buckles inadvertently started that ball rolling by dismissing what Sergeants Whitley and Guenther brought to him regarding the Hinman murder, before the LaBiancas had even been found. It seems that there were conflicting messages being put out by the Police, some seeing the similarities, others not. The absence of any drug evidence at the LaBiancas seems also to have put a block on officers actually looking at the possibilities of the same people being involved. Interestingly, the statement My hunch is that the reason they were not even more vocal was to preserve certain aspects of the two crimes in order to reserve things ‘only the murder(s) would know' since so much had been leaked to the press was 'commented' on by Ivor Davis in "Five to die" in the opposite vein ¬> "One of the 1st detectives to examine the scene commented 'If it's not the same man, he's a pretty good copycat.' But Lt Robert Helder, after all the facts were in and despite all the similarities, suggesting that police had inside knowledge they would not divulge, declared that, in fact, it was a copycat murder, a murder done by different people for different reasons, and with an effort to capitalize on the sensational slaughter of the previous night." That book came out in January 1970. When Davis was doing the updated version {they left the 1970 version intact} he included this: And Stovitz also recalls that it took an inordinate amount of time for the detectives to link both killings. "They kept telling fellow officers 'there's no way this is connected ~ you're just trying to muscle in on our territory'" Stovitz recalled.It's not only Bugliosi that felt this.Mind you, Al Springer seems to have been the first one to actively link the two crimes to the police.

But actually, I'm playing Devil's advocate because in reality, it would seem that the LaBianca detectives as well as those LASO detectives Whitley & Guenther actively connected the crimes.

Pax Vobiscum said...

We know the Beatles connection was identified early on by the LaBianca team but that, for example, was never mentioned to the press

It doesn't seem to have been taken seriously as something that connected it to the Cielo crime or even an avenue that the police wen down other than to mention it. Had "HEALTER SKELTER" not been written, I wonder if the detectives would even have seen a Beatle connection.

David said...

My problem is that he uses the police 'errors' in his book to enhance the appearance of his own performance

Sometimes. The Police weren't exactly on the ball regarding the gun even though they knew what it was almost from the kick off. They weren't shining stars when it came to the bloody clothes either. The two investigations working as separate ones demonstrated that the force in the main didn't see the two cases as connected, certainly the Tate detectives didn't. Steve Zabriske didn't even rate a report in Oregon when he went into a station and told the Police that a 'Charlie' and a 'Clem' were responsible for the murders. And when two officers asked Charlie if he knew anything about the murders and he said 'no' they didn't even write a report. They were a bit on the slow side when it came to the cabinet door with "Helter skelter" written on it. You can see how many minor occurrences could grow to niggle and irritate and soon become perhaps larger than they are in retrospect ~ but not to the person running into the minor happenings.But by the same token, he also gives the police credit such as the digging done to establish Charlie was in Southern California at the time of the killings, Dave Stueber's interview of Watkins and co and the locating of the Watson and Krenwinkel prints among other things.I see Bugliosi and the Police as being very human but "Helter Skelter" as a book, though written from the point of view exclusively of the prosecutor, shows that there were lots of different elements from different quarters that came together in netting the eventual convictions of the killers. Bugliosi did do perhaps more than a prosecuting lawyer ordinarily would, but it wasn't a solo excursion. Just seeing how the net closed around the family demonstrates that.

"They weren't shining stars when it came to the bloody clothes either"

The detectives took Atkins out of Sybil Brand to have her show them where the clothes were dumped and she directed them to a location nearly five miles away from where the clothes were. Hard to find the lost ark when you're digging in the wrong place.

It's a pleasure to read these posts by David. I really liked the levity in this one. I've re-read the last section where Kanarek approaches the bench several times and laughed out loud each time.

The 3 related - though at the time unrelated - stories nestled together on a page of the times is indeed surreal. I also noticed that to the lower left of the Spahn Ranch Raid story there's a headline with the name "Lennon" in it. Oo-ee-oo.

The detectives took Atkins out of Sybil Brand to have her show them where the clothes were dumped and she directed them to a location nearly five miles away from where the clothes were. Hard to find the lost ark when you're digging in the wrong place

I agree, though what I said was in the context of the camera crew managing to find them without Susan's actual presence.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

where are you getting this Steve Zabriske from? Ive seen you mention him before but i cant find anything on him

He's disappeared from history. He'd been told by Vern Plumlee and Ed Bailey of Charlie's involvement in the TLB murders and he furnished rumours of another shooting by Charlie {apparently} but the Portland police didn't believe him which is interesting given that he correctly specified the charge Charlie was being presently held on. It was a sergeant Ritchard he apparently spoke to. His brother in law, one Michael Lloyd Carter had also been with him when Plumlee and Bailey had told him this. Sergeant Ritchard didn't take it seriously {understandably} and never told LAPD.I've no idea how the story ever got to Bugliosi and Gentry but it's certainly an eye opener as Zabriske was the first person, not Al Springer as I earlier noted, to connect someone to the two crimes to the police. He did get Clem wrong but it was only a matter of time before he was hooked to a murder.

Yeah David that what im thinking after reading your great post, just wondering why Finken would list it as blood in the report, Cielo has always been a mystery to me, in some ways Rudi paid alot of attention to the upkeep, the landscaping looked immaculate in my opinion while the back of the house looked like something in a trailer park, the furnishings have always amazed me because of how cheap and worn they looked, the furniture looked very stained and worn aside from the blood and the bedding in the bedrooms was very basic and cheap looking for a Bel Air mansion, no headboard on the bed, cheap sheets, pillows, etc, the funny thing is that the guesthouse furnishings actually looked nicer than the main house, i know Melcher moved out in January but i dont know if he used the same furniture that was there at the time of the murders, i do know Melcher, Roman and Sharon and Voytek and Abigail partied in that house alot so that might be a reason for some of the wear and tear

Susanatkiins, totally agree with you about the Cielo house. The outside was just lovely but the back - ugh! It looked like a mess. Like it belonged to a different house. And the inside was indeed shabby. I guess Sharon and Roman never had the time there to renovate it.

Yeah Carol thats what i thought too, they were only there 6 or 7 months and gone alot of the time anyway, i think if theyd had more time theyd have decorated it alot better and maybe even made an offer to Rudi on the place

I read something once, not about Cielo but the Malibu Colony that address and view- who lived there before/ location meant more 'back then' among the fairly transient Hollywood crowd. Maybe a 'local' knows. And it was a rental.

Star ive always thought cops looked at the Crowe incident 1) as a dope burn 2) involving a black man who given the time unfortunately were probably looked at as an a forethought by police, was the shooting ever even reported to police at the time?

Grim said: "Had "HEALTER SKELTER" not been written, I wonder if the detectives would even have seen a Beatle connection."

Perhaps not, but they did, even misspelled. I think there is a recurring theme- official statements like McCauley and his ilk said 'no connection' but detectives said 'either a copycat or same killer(s)' or they are connected because of X. There is a statement somewhere in there (on the 11th I believe where McCauley (??) says 'this is not a maniac'. I think that was an issue- calming the public). I also think 'copycat' actually says 'connection' especially with the 'that's one theory' attached.

Susan, Starviego,

Technicality Manson was not 'on parole'. He was on 'early release'. Does that matter? Yes. The degree of monitoring is lower and the standard to pull the early release is higher- at least today, where I am. Now...shooting someone? Not a problem.

St, hello! I've been beyond busy. Ever seen that movie, "The Devil Wears Prada?" Well, I am working just as hard as that girl in the movie as a personal assistant, except instead of working for a wealthy, snooty, NYC fashion editor, I'm breaking my back for a wealthy ranch owner who refuses to hire ranch hands. I'm it. Assistant, ranch hand, property manager, travel agent, and everything else all in one.

The bullet Charlie fired in Crowe was the black hole !Speaking of which, though I'm often highly critical of Crowe, one has to give him serious props for how he acted in the immediate aftermath of getting that bullet rammed into him. It was some damned speedy thinking on his part to feign instant death considering the amount of pain he must have been in and to keep up the act until Charlie and TJ left {he didn't know they wouldn't stay an hour !} and then to take the situation in hand and make sure the flat was cleared of witnesses called for a certain calm in a less than calm scenario.

St Circumstance said...

It always amazed me that all the crimes were so similiar in style, level of viciousness, and execution down to the bloody writing on walls - committed by same group of people- never were thought of as potentially tied

Also interesting is that they were investigated by three distinctly different teams of detectives, two of which thought there were definitely connections. There's almost an unspoken hierarchy there, with the Tate detectives getting top billing.Perhaps that grated with Bugliosi who saw the Tate detectives as having had the opportunity to have sorted the case in less than 2 days and he wasn't above pointing out other's mistakes ~ but maybe not his own !.

David said...

Grim said: "Had "HEALTER SKELTER" not been written, I wonder if the detectives would even have seen a Beatle connection."

Perhaps not, but they did, even misspelled

I didn't put that very well. What I meant was, had nothing to do with helter skelter been written, I wonder whether the LaBianca detectives would have picked up on "Rise" and "Death to pigs" as having a Beatle connection. They're quite obscure references regarding the songs and it's "Helter skelter" which is an actual title of a song, which puts meat on the other references' bones.

Have at it Grim im willing to listen, i already conceded that it probably isnt blood, my question now is why Finken listed it as blood in the report, like i said the other comments he gave in the report i just write off as opinions that dont mean much but blood is a big thing

Crowe in my opinion goes to prove something i read Charlie saying about Tex saying that hed stay for a week then leave for a month and then come back and want him to hide him from people hed burned on dope deals, i think Tex was alot more of an independant operator than most people think, i think Susan was like that too

Crowe in my opinion goes to prove something i read Charlie saying about Tex saying that hed stay for a week then leave for a month and then come back and want him to hide him from people hed burned on dope deals, i think Tex was alot more of an independant operator than most people think, i think Susan was like that too

Well if the guy worked for the Coroner's Office you'd figure he would know what real blood looked like. The fact he caught it and not Granado the first time around may mean it was a transfer stain that happened after Granado conducted his blood collection.

I am not sure any of this helps but I just noticed that from the versions of the 'Blood Report" I have seen items numbered G22-23-24-25-26 and G27 are missing and we know they existed at some point. In his testimony we know that G25 was the mark on the beam, which he determined to not be blood.

So the answer to what is in the garage might be in G22-23-24-26 or G27.

And might also answer what is in this picture: http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/10050-cielo-drive-bathroom.php

I have never seen what is Addendum #2 to the 1st Homicide Report. I have seen, of course, the report to Commander Martin at SID, which is where the numbers are missing.

Something I've also thought about for ages but never looked into in depth -- how the parole board back then seemed to be so dysfunctional

By 1966, if you looked at Charlie's record what one may see is a petty, slightly recidivist crook as opposed to a potentially violently dangerous one. I can see why he'd be given early release. When he went back inside over the cheque, it was for a violation of probation in the midst of a suspended sentence. Bugliosi in his book notes that there was no sustained history of violence on Charlie's record and from when he went back to jail in 1960, his disciplinary record wasn't persistently concerning.When one looks at the reasons he was getting arrested post Terminal Island, it's a similar story. Arrests but no convictions of substance. However, Samuel Barrett testified that, without any knowledge of murder, he was in the process of revoking Manson's freedom and that around October 1st he'd written a letter setting this in motion so one could say, they got there in the end.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

i already conceded that it probably isnt blood, my question now is why Finken listed it as blood in the report, like i said the other comments he gave in the report i just write off as opinions that dont mean much but blood is a big thing

A boy named Sue, you're right, blood is a big thing. But perhaps Finken's error is understandable given the magnitude of what had occurred. I know LE are supposed to be detached but they are human and can get things wrong. We can see from a number of Bugliosi's comments, even 5 years after the event when he'd had plenty of time to process things, he even got things wrong. He never tries to tie evidence of the knife wounds on Frykowski to Susan Atkins even though it is plausible and he brought out of one of his witnesses {I can't recall if it's Howard or Graham} but continues to insist that he thought she stabbed Sharon Tate where there is scant evidence that she did so.Like with the earlier mentioned parole officers, people are people and not computers.

starviego said...

And because he didn't talk, nine people died(according to the official version). Citizen-of-the-year he wasn't

I wasn't paying heed to his claims of great citizenry and the fact that 9 people went on to die is hardly his fault. But even if it was, that doesn't take away his actions immediately following a bullet going into him and that's what I was commenting on. Quick thinking. Even a scumbag can be given credit for quick thinking when it occurs.

Susan said: "Hey David i dont know if you covered this or not but what is your opinion of the bloody purple scarf found on the lawn with type O blood on it? What it was, where it came from, etc"

Assuming you mean this: "G-16. Violet colored scarf found on grass area between body of Frykowski and pathway to front of house, human blood. O-MN" and not the purple ribbons near the door.

You are foreshadowing a post to come.

Sharon Tate's blood (I think very good probability) and possibly the actual device used to write 'Pig' on the door (likely, IMO). From Frykowski (No evidence- a guess). Yes, I know O-MN is Jay Sebring.

Susan Atkins lied, repeatedly- at the Grand Jury, to Caballero, in her books #1 and #2 and in every interview. If she says the date was August 8-9 you should consult a calendar. In fact, I believe it would be a serious error to actually ever give what she says- anytime, anywhere, any credence UNLESS (yelling): there is independent evidence to corroborate her version of events, and sometimes, there is.

She is the template for the 'official narrative' and she is unreliable.

PS: She had an uncanny understanding when she was implicating herself and on most of those occasions her facts are 'fluid'.

Yeah Susan was an attenion whore, Bill Nelson wrote her a letter in 2001 and ripped into her for all her lies while claiming to be a "Christian", said that she told him in 1993 that Tex got pissed at her during the Cielo killings and locked her out of the house, yeah that seems really plausible lol

Was just re reading Texs account of Cielo from his trial and man that would make a hell of a blog post, i had almost forgotten how many holes and differences there are in that early account, dont know whether it was the coming down from the drugs, the voluntary starvation or what but it's quite the yarn lol

No, they weren't. They made mistakes, some clangers, and one could argue that Shorty would not have been murdered had Jess Buckles taken on board with a little more seriousness what Whitley and Guenther told him before the LaBiancas were found.But the reality is that they did their investigating and had the case in handleable spec before Stovitz and Bugliosi were put onto it.To put it another way, would the case have gotten where it did without the Police investigation ? They did lots of important stuff that was subsequently built on.

Finding Christ doesn't make you more honest

No, but choosing to engage with Christ and live Christ's way infused with Christ's love, strength and reality does cause one to be more honest. And that's partly why Susan Atkins was such a conundrum. That said, your judgement of her is good up to 1977. In the aftermath of "Child of Satan, Child of God" I'll give her some leeway in the sense that she was really a baby Christian when she 'wrote' that book and in my opinion, it should never have been written. Not until further down the line when she had some maturity in her. At that time the church tended to leap on any well known person {celeb or infamous} that became a Christian and get them in front of the cameras/typewriters to "tell their story," {eg, Bob Dylan, Eldridge Cleaver, Glenn Hoddle} not taking into account that it often takes years to sort out and process where one is at and find a happy medium with where one has been and how one sees one's life up to that point. Later there would be much embarrassment seeing some turn away from the Church or get involved in questionable activities after the big sell.But by the time of her final book "The Myth of...." her contradictions were tumbling all over the place and she revealed herself as someone who, far from being forgiving and at peace, was mean and vengeful with resentment flowing all over those pages towards Linda, Bugliosi and in particular, Charlie.

The coincidence of these three stories being on this page has always struck me as one of the more almost 'mystical' events associated with these crimes. It is almost as if someone (or something) was trying to tell the investigators where to look

Careful mate, like is done with Bugliosi and the watch, your words will be taken out of context years from now and you'll be cast in the role of the lawyer that thought God was telling the cops where to look for the murderers !

A boy named Sue with an STD said...

do you have an opinion on why Finken listed it as blood in the report?

What would have helped later on is if he had come out and taken responsibility for getting it wrong. Mind you, the way the police sometimes get roasted in the book, it's not that great a surprise that he just kept quiet.

Grim said: "Careful mate, like is done with Bugliosi and the watch, your words will be taken out of context years from now and you'll be cast in the role of the lawyer that thought God was telling the cops where to look for the murderers !"

Maybe that is what I'm saying ;-)

Grim said: "What would have helped later on is if he had come out and taken responsibility for getting it wrong. Mind you, the way the police sometimes get roasted in the book, it's not that great a surprise that he just kept quiet."

Finken testified at both trials and Bugliosi stayed away from his 'continuation' sheet. Kanarek at the outset of Naguchi's cross examination tried to get it in. Bugliosi 'went off' asking for an immediate side bar. The focus was the 'party' reference but Bugliosi spends a good deal of time talking about how he's 'seen this before' in murder cases where some 'coroner's deputy or whatever he is' says things for which there is no evidence.

Kanarek loses the issue primarily because the Judge notes he's asking the wrong witness (it is hearsay) demonstrating yet again the incompetence of the defense- Finken just left the stand right before Naguchi. Ask him!

Tex's testimony at trial was so thin and unconvincing, I don't know why they even decided to put him on the stand

A boy named Sue with an STD said...

Was just re reading Texs account of Cielo from his trial...i had almost forgotten how many holes and differences there are in that early account....it's quite the yarn

I feel that too but I can't help wondering if I'd still feel this had Tex not confessed in his book that he lied for self preservation during his trial.Knowing beforehand that he casts it all as lies is partly why it seems so ridiculous and why it's so embarrassing.But because it comprises mainly of lies, it does throw into question his claim of Charlie telling him what to do on the night of August 8th.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

supposedly Catherine Share and her had been to Cielo and swam in the pool driving up there in Dennis Wilsons car

I had a right old barney once, with someone that said she was Charles Tacot's {one of the early Cielo suspects} woman about this as she was claiming that Sharon's killers swam in the pool the day before the murders. She also said that she had been one of the suspects.

And because he [Crowe] didn't talk, nine people died(according to the official version)

It occurred to me once that had William Garretson told the police what he told a TV programme in 1999, LAPD would have had some inkling that they were looking for at least one woman and that might have elicited a little more urgency from them in the light of the revelations from LASO officers about the Hinman killing, knowing that some of Bobby Beausoleil's group comprised of women.

My problem isn't so much with Watson's lies as with his selective amnesia. He remembers the make and model of Melcher's car, but he can't seem to remember how the phone lines at Cielo Drive got cut

The selective amnesia and the lies amount to one and the same thing. About the only thing he states that's true is that he had a hand in killing all 8 victims.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I thought Morehouse stayed in the guesthouse for a couple of weeks around the time Melcher left, cant remember where i read it

It's been in so many blogs and a number of books, Shreck's book states it and Shreck makes a case based on Watson and Moorehouse being there for a while dealing drugs, which of course falls to pieces when it turns out they didn't live there. Most famously though, it's in "Helter Skelter."

there was a treasure trove of statements by Finken for the defense to hammer him on

Sometimes I wonder if some of the defence lawyers weren't actually trying to ensure that the defendants were found guilty.That said, they were put under a certain amount of difficulty by their clients. But what I've long found strange was that the women all pleaded 'not guilty.' Charlie couldn't have pleaded anything else.....Mind you, it is rather telling that while he was giving all the spiel about how he was being tried and convicted by the press, in his mind he was knowingly smiling about Lotsapoppa and how he'd gotten away with his death. Until he discovered that he was alive.

His whole account to Bubrick about Cielo is laughable, he didnt drive there, there was no rope, he didnt see the girls between the time he shot Parent until they got into the house but he does remember walking up the driveway with them, he just opened the front door of the house and walked in, he "unloaded the gun" into Sebring but didnt shoot Frykowski and most of all no mention whatsoever about Sharon until cross examination

Ive never understood the whole Moorehouse thing, heres a 50 year old guy hanging around these kids and music industry people like Dennis Wilson, Melcher, Jakobsen, etc, im guessing Charlie tolerated him because of Ruth

Grim said: "That said, they were put under a certain amount of difficulty by their clients."

This is true but what I can tell you without hesitation is there are multiple times, too numerous to count, where they are simply incompetent and no interference or direction from their client (they all really only had one) occurred. Finken is one relatively minor, example. A first year law student should be able to tell you that Finken's notes are hearsay and that the only way to 'get them in' or get the comments in is to have Finken testify about them.

Kanarek tried to argue 'but an expert (Naguchi) can rely on hearsay to formulate his opinion'- that is true but it doesn't make the hearsay statements admissible.

Combine that with the fact the notes don't 'impeach' Naguchi and you are left, as an attorney, asking why on earth Kanarek thought they would be useful there. Their utility is for other witnesses like Granado- Officer Granado, where is your record of the blood int he garage? What if such a record actually exists and it shows type A and none of the suspects are type A?

Go back to the rope- Fitzgerald created the headline 'Sharon Tate Hung While She Died' not Bugliosi.

There were four attorneys at that table and none of them stepped up to bat, although in fairness Bugliosi did a good job of shutting down Hughes by arguing the 'Cielo' evidence did not apply to his client so he couldn't cross examine. Then again Hughes should have said 'ah, Judge, there is a conspiracy alleged. I will stipulate to that if Mr. Bugliosi will stipulate that the first night is not part of the conspiracy.'

Peter Moran said: "Wouldn't notes in a police or coroner's report be an exception to the hearsay rule, admission of a business record?"

You could make that argument. Kanarek didn't. I'd also argue 'no' as they would have to be 'in the regular course'. I should be clearer. Kanarek did try to make that argument he just could never articulate it.

The judge also invited him to ask Naguchi if he relied upon them in reaching his opinion. Kanarek says something like 'that's what I did' but he didn't and never does.

I think the argument is that a police report would be in the regular course of business - that's what they do, eat donuts, hand out tickets and make reports, but I know not all courts follow this rationale and I'm sure the Rules of Evidence have changed on this point. He could probably be shown the document to refresh recollection for his testimony, but not necessarily have them entered into evidence. Are expert materials automatically evidence, seems like that would create an end-run around the rule?

Anyway, don't necessarily want to hijack this discussion with a legal fine point. I really enjoy the blog's posts, they do a great job of highlighting the little inconsistencies and details, or highlighting one of the minor characters or events that make the case so interesting. The are always well researched and well written and lead to interesting discussions. It's a great case because there is so much information out there, both known and unknown. The fact that the Tex tapes are still out there, unheard, and being fought over 40 years later is incredible to me.

By the way, do you have access to the actual Manson trial transcripts? I've been looking all over the internet for them, and I'm actually surprised nobody has posted them. Or are you getting this information from the books? But hat tip to the Cielo blog for all the fantastic source material he/she has posted. I really enjoy reading the transcripts and listing to the interview recordings. Great resource.

Now I'll correct myself. Finken's comments are in an autopsy report. That would be the Public Records exception to the hearsay rule. The official rule (adopted by most states) did not exist until 1975 but California did have a similar rule in 1970. Under that rule the record must have been made within the scope of public employees duty. Finken's comments don't meet this test IMO.

An expert's records do not automatically come in although you have a right to review anything he relied upon in reaching his opinion. The actual data must pass some other exception to the hearsay rule to be admissible.

So what Kanarek might have done is ask Naguchi whether whether Naguchi viewed Finken's comments as being within the scope of his employment (duty). If Naguchi said 'yes' then it might very well come in. But, then what?

Transcripts: its not free but....https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4657630

I have access to the transcripts or at least many of them. Deb and I are going to put them together and figure out where to host. Deb is under the weather and Matt turned on me so we are still figuring shit out. Stay tuned

We cannot get along because for too many people on the web this is a game. A Game of suspects. True Crime has become Fake News. Oh, look Amanda Knox didn't do it (she fucking did and loved it). Adnan Syed maybe not (100% guilty). "I watched Netlix poor Steven Avery" " You mean the rapist killer?"

People on the web think because they can type their bullshit matters. Look at all the posts from Grim Traveler. He can type/cut and paste and use html tages he just cannot think. But damn he has an opinion and we all know it right folks?

I have only cared about ONE Thing- how/why did these ten murders happen. EVERYTHING ELSE IS A SIDESHOW. Some of it is interesting. But it is a sideshow

Great job David, again. Is this the, or one of the most complete analyses done on the police work on TLB? Maybe it can be of value to any of the families of the involved police and detectives.So your next posting is on the blood on the porch? That one is so perplexing because there's the blood saying Tate and Sebring were there bleeding. Is there no possibility that the blood was Frykowski's-that the testing was wrong?

I don't like 'teasers' and its not quite done yet, but yes, part of the blood evidence I believe is wrong and I believe there is an explanation that could explain the 'error' but I don't think it is the testing that is wrong.

Isn't the point of this to encourage discussion? Doesn't your approach, there, put a chill on that?

I don't know why anyone else writes here. I do because a few years ago I decided I didn't need/want to work 60 hours a week anymore and I like to write- be it crappy fiction or this- the less I work the more time I have. I have very few dragons left to slay- maybe mayor.

If I am writing about the sideshow for 50 readers, I don't care. I'd write for myself.

Motive: let's start by getting Sanders' copies of Kasabian's 'notes to the prosecution' and I bet we will find not only keys to the 'motive' but also what happened between the truth and the trial. Of course we would need to keep an open, critical mind.

Humphrat if youve tead the first official homicide report for Cielo near the end of it there a a couple of theories on how the events unfolded and the one that sticks out to me regarding Jay abd Sharons blood on the porch is that they believed Tex and the girls were met at the front door by Jay, Voytek and Sharon and came inside, soon after an argument ensued, Abigail heard the argument, came into the living room and was attacked by someone with a knife and bolted for the master bedroom doors out to the pool, during this time whoever had the .22 was holding Jay, Sharon and Voytek at the front door and possibly on the front porch, Voytek saw Abigail being attacked and ran towards her forcing whoever had the gun to shoot him in the back during which time Sharon and Jay are on the front porch watching, after Voytek and Abigail are finished off they then turn their attention to Sharon and Jay and begin stabbing them on the porch then bring them back inside

I have only cared about ONE Thing- how/why did these ten murders happen

Well, some of us actually do have a life and thoughts that consist of considerably more than that.However, no one is denying you the freedom to care about that. Indeed, you have your own site which ran for 10 years and got no closer to the one thing you care about than you are now.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS A SIDESHOW. Some of it is interesting. But it is a sideshow

You refer to what gets discussed as a sideshow. I call it discussing various aspects of the case. You do however acknowledge that some of the 'sideshow' is interesting. So if people are discussing sideshows that are interesting, what's gotten under your skin this fine day ?Your monomania ceased to be interesting quite a while ago. If people want to talk about things that you consider to be beneath your good self, then don't get involved. No one forces you to pour hot bacon on your bare laps.You could always revive your blog then you can have as many quality conversations with yourself as you wish.There's an old saying that is beginning to remind me of you with increasing regularity ¬> "You can't hurt a masochist."

brownrice said...

David said... Oh why can't we all just get along?

Basically, because we're all humans

Yet at the same time, there are people here whose views are often diametrically opposed that get on. OK, it is 'only' in cyberspace, but the big verbal wars happen in cyberspace.However, I have to concede that you are right in some ways. Some humans can't even be civil with people they don't know and have never met.

Peter Moran said...

By the way, do you have access to the actual Manson trial transcripts?

If you e~mail Denise Fox at the LA county District Attorney's office and make a formal request for the trial transcripts, she may send them to you free of charge. They come on 4 DVDs.

I wish that you would all get along because I think you get further if you all worked together. I am a huge fan of both the Col and all the people who work on this blog and have personally seen how well they can get along and work together.

From personal experience I have learned Matt does not turn on people he just consistently does what he thinks is best for the site and no favorites seem to ever matter. Several of us have experienced this and have found it is not personal. As the site keeps growing and new names keep surfacing - there must be some method to the madness...

I agree I don't take this as serious as others and go outside the lines to be amusing. I simply don't have much else to offer. That's why I stopped writing posts.

But I wish Col and Matt and Deb and Cielo and everyone else who does have so much to offer- would all be on same team!!

Saint said:: "But I wish Col and Matt and Deb and Cielo and everyone else who does have so much to offer- would all be on same team!!"

Here, here!

I've always thought a post from more then one person would be a good idea since you tend to miss things or even become focused on your own view of things when you research/write them. It would be interesting to see what would happen if one was 'passed around' before it was posted.

The 'Franklin hearing' here is based upon the fact LVH was 19 at the time of the murders and the age of majority was 21. That technically made her a juvenile offender and allows her, after Franklin, to offer 'youth factors' in support of parole. Here that is likely Manson's control or Watson's control.

That hearing is set for August 24th. Cielodrive indicates that there will be a discovery hearing on August 18th. LVH's attorney, Rich Pfeiffer, has asked the court to review the "Tex Tapes" in camera (in private) to determine if any portions support her 'youth factors'.

I think we can expect one of several outcomes from that:

1. Nothing, because there is nothing there that relates to LVH that has not been presented or could not be presented without the tapes.

2. The court releases the tapes or more likely portions of the tapes subject to a protective order- that they can be viewed/heard by LVH (her attorney) the parole board and the governor. This would likely mean there is some evidence either Watson ordered her to attack or fairly clear indications of Manson's control or her lack of participation.

3. The court releases the tapes. I don't think this is very likely and I believe if that happens it will be because the court listens and says 'what's the big deal' which might mean we are all very disappointed with the content.

4. The court denies the request. It is incumbent on LVH to provide some indication their is something relevant on the tapes. I don't see how she can actually do that without hearing the tapes- a catch-22.

I think the bottom line will come down to how the court feels about the Governor veto.

But I believe our last and best chance to get even an inkling of what is on those tapes before all the convicted die will happen on August 18.

Cielo I didn't mean to imply you did I just threw you into the mix because you are almost like a common resource a lot of us use and between you Deb Matt and Col- a lot could get done that is serious and would matter if you all combined resources...

I am a huge fan of you and your site and your site along with Matts and Cols are the most relevant and interesting.

The hearing on the 24th, I believe is open to the public and will be held the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, which is across the street from the Hall of Justice. Van Houten may attend so it's likely to be a media circus.

Lulu and Pat have attorneys who have come up with some new wrinkles as far as approach- but I think the results will remain the same.

Besides, unlike all the others, Lulu got to taste some freedom for awhile. I say Leslie and Pat check out right where they are. I admire the good prison records. Good for them. They did what they were supposed to do. Stayed out of further trouble.

This is how I've always approached it. If there are those that think that an already solved case can be solved half a century later, have at it folks. Personally, I enjoy discussing and debating a variety of angles. I don't have a burning need to unearth a motive because I think those presented are it and I've not yet encountered anything that has persuaded me otherwise. But that doesn't mean it's a done deal and that there is nothing left to say or discover. It's a bit like being a Christian in the sense that, although the major question has been answered, life doesn't just stop and lose its mystery. On the contrary, there's so much more to discover, more to know, lots of detail to grapple with, more living to be done, more to get wrong and try to correct....And with this case, I've gone on learning and sharing and sifting, even though the main question has been answered.Sometimes, analysing the match for years after is more fun than it was to actually play in it.

If I am writing about the sideshow for 50 readers, I don't care. I'd write for myself

I think that's great. I'm the same with music and writing and other things. I see no problems in amusing oneself with artistic pursuit or whatever it is. It's actually pretty liberating to not be under commercial constraints.

ColScott said...

People on the web think because they can type their bullshit matters

On the other hand, what generally happens on this blog {and others that I've been part of} is that individuals pool their ideas and thoughts and there is sufficient range to keep some conversations going. It's naive to trot out the line that what we have to say doesn't matter. It matters within the confines in which we post. I'm not going to cry if someone thinks what I have to say is irrelevant or stupid. I enjoy being part of a conversation and will contest my corner if need be. Each person is responsible for determining what, in their opinion, matters. They might even find some agreeing with them.

It is interesting to learn new facts about the case. Why can't it be a combination of motives? Get Mary out of jail, get Bobby out of jail, send a message to Melcher, a drug burn....Helter Skelter race war though i believe Charlie used the latter as a higher cause to manipulate his followers further - when in truth his motives were much less fantastic. Charlie is guilty. He masterminded and manipulated, used jail house games. While he may not have killed any of the actual victims...he directed his clan to both houses, he tied the Labianca's up to be slaughtered, he cut Gary Hinman's ear, he shot the drug dealer. While this case is interesting, I am not sure why sites try to retry the case. The people who are guilty are in prison and have been now for almost 50 years. In closing and a side note, Col Scott - I agree with your distaste for Debra Tate.

Even without the Helter Skelter motive, the other things I mentioned in above post, Charlie by these things alone was guilty at the very least of conspiracy.I think the "actual" killers may not have totally believed the Helter Skelter motive but it would be much easier to kill in the name of a higher purpose or calling. Solidiers do it all the time and they too are programmed to kill. Not necessarily comparing them to Tate killers...jyst comment from a psychological and sociological perspective.

I think AT MOST Charlie told them to go get some money out of them, he knew Texs ways from the Crowe rip off but i dont think he ever figured in a million years that Tex would go nuts like he did, i honestly think Charlie was completely stunned when they got back and told him what happened, i think the next night was another attempt to get money, Charlie and the girls had been in Waverly before when it was vacant when they partied next door at Harolds, i think Harold told Charlie that the home was vacant but furnished and in the Labianca familys possession and he knew they had money and more than likely told Charlie that, i think hed looked for something of value there before but didnt find anything and went back when he knew Leno would be there, i believe Tex left with Rosemary to go either to Gateway or her shop

Susan etc. said: "I think AT MOST Charlie told them to go get some money out of them, he knew Texs ways from the Crowe rip off but i dont think he ever figured in a million years that Tex would go nuts like he did, i honestly think Charlie was completely stunned when they got back and told him what happened, i think the next night was another attempt to get money,"

Then explain 43 feet of rope and why he would ever even think about going along the second night with the same guy(s) who went nuts and leave him (them) alone in the house. There is that second night again and Manson getting in the car.

When you look at the really crazy things Charlie has said over the years in interviews "maybe i should have killed 4 or 5 hundred people", "if i wanted to id take this book and beat you to death with it", and all the crazy dancing and theatrics i think he was the same way back then between 67 and 69, the crazy shit he says is always in jest and meant to shock, his whole life hes been a powerless insecure little person in a powerful big persons world, there was a great line in a movie, i cant remember which one "hes here to show us that the biggest and the meanest make all the rules in this world"

David call me naive but i honestly dont think Charlie thought or wanted Waverly to go the way it did either, i honestly believe he KNEW either Leno or Rosemary had something of great value either in that house or at one of the businesses and wanted it and knew Tex could get it, he MAY have known Tex would have to get violent to get it, as far as the rope my position is of course it was there but how would anyone know whos idea it was to bring it, again were going on the word of killers

"In a rare, in-depth interview, Charles Manson’s former parole officer Roger Smith tells Dateline NBC’s Keith Morrison that Manson’s failed music career drove him to find new ways to control his followers. Airs Friday, August 4 at 10/9c on NBC."

Just looked it up, a one hour special with "rare and never before seen footage" but the same old lame ass players, Debra Tate, Jeff Guinn, Anthony DiMaria, Barbara Hoyt, looks like Greg Jakobsen and Roger Smith will be the only interesting things about it

They did one last year that some of the interviews appear to be from. They had the same quote from the vocal fry woman - "These were broodal cryme scenes" - in last years preview. They also had Jakobson in the preview of last years episode, but I don't remember him being in the actual episode that aired last year. If he was in it, it must have been a very brief appearance. I don't think Roger Smith was in last years show at all.

I recall that last years show was thought to be a two-parter, and the second part never aired. I don't know if that has anything to do with this. From the preview it looks like some recycled stuff from last year mixed with unused interview footage from last year, and the "rare, in-depth interview" with Roger Smith, which appears to be new.

Here, the judge spanks Kanarek from the bench after questioning Squeeky about her X and whether it meant Charlie wasn't getting a fair trial.

THE COURT: You will be heard when I finish talking. I have come to the regretful conclusion during the course of this trial that Mr. Kanarek appears to be totally without scruples, ethics and professional responsibility so far as the trial of this lawsuit is concerned, and I want the records to clearly reflect that. Now do you wish to be heard, Mr. Kanarek?

MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, I would not have asked that question except that the prosecution raised the issue. What I am saying is, if I may, your Honor, Mr. Bugliosi brought up the matter of the X, your Honor, in fact he --

THE COURT: That is beside the point.

MR. KANAREK: This is the reason the X is there, your Honor.

THE COURT: I am not saying you did not have the right to ask the witness what the X symbolized, but put in the form that you put it in, there cannot be the slightest doubt in this Court's mind what you were doing, that you knew full well what you were doing, that you intentionally intended to prejudice the jury with tat statement, knowing full well there would be an objection and it would be sustained.

If Grim Falls in the Forest but no one fucking hears him does he back a whining sound?

Come on mate, look at your game. We must be approaching the end of the world or the Twilight Zone {great series !} when President Trump's attempts at humour and dissing are way more entertaining, funny and on point than my pal Scotty. Woe is me !

I bet you sound like an English Chipmunk friend of Alvin's

If the price is right.

AMIRITE?

Dunno mate. You'll have to ask Optimus Prime about that one.

Donna Nelson said...

Why can't it be a combination of motives? Get Mary out of jail, get Bobby out of jail, send a message to Melcher, a drug burn....

Well it was a combination of motives that the prosecution presented. Bugliosi in his opening blurb specifically spoke of 3.Tex spoke of the Bobby, Mary and Sandy angle along with HS in his '78 book. What would be a real steal is if he says the same thing on the Tex tapes.Susan spoke about sending a message to Melcher but she also said she killed Sharon Tate and tasted her blood and to~d and fro~d on so many important matters so take her words to support your points at your peril.

While this case is interesting, I am not sure why sites try to retry the case

I guess because there has long been a dissatisfaction with the result and some of the elements presented within it or associated with it and some of its process. Also, there are many people that don't accept that a man could send others to kill in modern day, enlightened America, to kick into gear a prophecy that was made up of the ridiculous seeming elements that HS contains. It's almost as though notions that an enlightened nation and superpower had put behind it {the prophet speaking with divine authority into the workings and lives of the nation} are brought front and centre in HS and need to be comprehensively demolished. I find it interesting food for thought but ultimately irrelevant, given that a motive wasn't even required. But I enjoy hearing the various takes on the case.

David, kind of an unrelated question but maybe not what do you think of the opinion or theory of the "girls in the house" that Parent mentioned to Garretson being Susan, Pat or Linda as opposed to Sharon and Abigail, possibly creepy crawling the place beforehand?

Grim it isnt so hard to believe that a man would send people to kill even in 2017 let alone 1969, the thing that makes it questionable is all the other things involved in the case, drugs, the so called "randomness" of picking the places, etc

it isnt so hard to believe that a man would send people to kill even in 2017 let alone 1969, the thing that makes it questionable is all the other things involved in the case, drugs, the so called "randomness" of picking the places, etc

I agree. When I was giving some examples, I didn't want to write too much stuff. I've long felt, however, that there is a paradoxical aspect to what many find questionable. I say paradoxical because it all fits quite easily in my mind, despite the apparent contradictions.

Yeah for me theres too many contradictions and/or coincidences for me to believe the accepted narrative but the important thing is with the exception of Charlie the right people are locked up (minus Kasabian)

Yeah for me theres too many contradictions and/or coincidences for me to believe the accepted narrative but the important thing is with the exception of Charlie the right people are locked up (minus Kasabian)

Cielo I wanted to respond to your previous comment, but either the site or my phone wouldnt let me. You're a voice of reason on this blog, and I really appreciate your contributions. Your web site is the best.

Susan etc. said: "what do you think of the opinion or theory of the "girls in the house" that Parent mentioned to Garretson being Susan, Pat or Linda as opposed to Sharon and Abigail, possibly creepy crawling the place beforehand?"

Ah.....not much. There is no opportunity. Parent actually arrived between 11:00 and 11:25 not 11:45. Frykowski called Witold K at about midnight. That would mean they were in the house when he was on the phone.

From 60 feet away on the path he saw Abigail and Sharon and based upon his conversation with Friedman thought he was looking at two movie stars and was trying to get Garretson to spill the beans on who they were.

for me theres too many contradictions and/or coincidences for me to believe the accepted narrative

They can often seem that way to us in retrospect but not necessarily if you put yourself in the mind of the perps moving with live action and engaging events as they encountered them on a daily and momentary basis.

but the important thing is with the exception of Charlie the right people are locked up (minus Kasabian)

In other words, two thirds of the conspirators ? And we're not even including Clem.

Waverly wasnt included in that, so Leslie is included in the group and Linda should be, in my opinion shes the most blood thirsty of all the girls and the biggest piece of shit, IV drug user, prostitute, chronic liar, thief, child abandoner and killer

Susan etc. said: "What makes you believe Parent showed up at 11 and not the generally accepted 11:45?"

Friedman, in response to some very effective (extremely odd for this trial) cross examination said the actual phone call was at 11:30 his time. He said Parent corrected him to 11:25 and he then said he (Friedman) remembered he set his clock 5 minutes fast. Contrary to Bugliosi's version there was no 'exchange of times' for SP to set the clock on the radio: Parent didn't ask 'what time is it?' of course on direct because of how VB asked the question it comes across that way but on cross the question became 'what time do you have?' and SP corrects him.

Friedman also said SP said he would be there (at Friedman's) by 12:30. And Friedman said he asked how far away he was and SP said 40 minutes. Since VB managed to get Garretson to say the call was at midnight and Friedman to say he called at midnight on direct, at the Watson trial the lawyers stipulated to the call being at 11:45 (12:30 minus 40 minutes +/-). That's wrong.

To me, and what I may say is the only effective cross examination of a witness I have seen in this case to date, the call clearly was at 11:25 p.m.

1. On direct he says the call was at 11:452. On cross he says it was at 11:253. On cross he says SP said he would be at Friedman's in 20 minutes "No better make that 40. I'll be there at 12:30."

Which one is wrong #1 or #2. Adding further mystery Garretson says SP arrived at 11:45, made the call to Friedman at midnight and left at 12:15 -perfect timing for VB's theory of the case but not at all consistent.

Long comment for short answer- either that or the time it all began is off

I also think its very possible Vince "lead" Bill with his story as he was known for doing "so when did Steve arrive, Bill? Oh im not sure, maybe 11:30...Think maybe its very possible it was 11:45? Could be.....Ok so then it was 11:45 for sure, right? Yes im sure"

I also think its very possible Vince "lead" Bill with his story as he was known for doing "so when did Steve arrive, Bill? Oh im not sure, maybe 11:30...Think maybe its very possible it was 11:45? Could be.....Ok so then it was 11:45 for sure, right? Yes im sure"

Except that the day after the murders during the polygraph examination of Garretson, he says, completely without prompting or being asked ¬> "And about a quarter of twelve, or something like that, Steve came up and, you know, he brought his radio with him."

So when it comes to times in this whole affair, it's William Garretson that starts the whole ball rolling, followed by the Tate detectives, who, in their report, log a series of sounds heard that night. The wide disparity between the times show that some had nothing to do with the murders.Rarely do people log exact times of things they see or hear, they go for approximations. I mean , isn't it interesting that at trial those times are logged as 11.25 and 11.45 rather than 11.21 and 11.42 ? Note the day after the murders Garretson unprompted tells the detective that Steve came up at 11.45 or something like that.I've not yet seen the point of emphasizing time lines. There's nothing that they change.

I agree with you. I've just always wondered why it was so important to Bugliosi (or why he thought it was)

I often wonder that too. I think it's partly that controlling aspect of his character coming out. I suspect that he wanted the jury to know that he basically had every aspect of the case locked down, leaving no wiggle or wriggle room for the defence. It sounds really impressive to be able to pinpoint things like times, it sounds like the prosecutor has a real handle on matters, being able to make random pieces of evidence form a "coherent" picture and he got that in quite effectively. Once one has heard it, it's like it sticks in the mind and one just assumes it all falls into place. I never even questioned how ridiculous it was in his book at the start to speak of all the sounds heard, the screaming men, the barking dogs, the different sets of gunshots, the report of the woman screaming etc. It's just a great way to start a book and it sets the scene brilliantly and gets the reader tense before anything has even happened that we know of.But much of it makes no sense being linked to what happened !One thing one has to say about Bugliosi, he had an insight, perhaps cynical at times, into human nature and what could captivate a person's attention and admiration and what might switch them off.I find him and Charles Manson to be so alike in a number of ways. So alike that both would probably want to punch me out for even suggesting it !

Maybe he plugged the clock in and it defaulted or they set it to midnight just to see that it works. and unplugged it 20 minutes later. It's a clock that needs to be plugged in right, so it could have been set at any time. I always wondered why they make such a big deal over when the clock stopped.

But Bugliosi also wanted the screams Tim Ireland heard to line up with the murders. Then he tried to get Kasabian to describe the screams as 'pleading screams'. He was trying to play to the emotions of the jury. He did a lot of that during the trial and I would speculate he did so because he was initially worried about his case against Manson.

Lol my TRUE comments about Linda have been removed by the blog Gestapo as ususl, funny thing thing is,everything i quoted were HER OWN WORDS, nteresting how a person with such a seedy questionable past is treated like a sacred cow around here, same reason Charlie wasnt permitted to cross examine her

Dont like something you read no matter how true just remove it, are you that threatened hearing the TRUTH about Kasabian and more importantly BUGLIOSI to show you his wheeling, dealing and conniving to further his career?

Not to mention was so broken up and traumatized byvthe previous nightsxevents that she got in the car and drove not only to Waverly but all around LA hunting for potential victims and actually took Atkins and Grogan to her "friend" Naders place to kill him, lol yeah shes a real saint

Linda Kasabian a sacred cow ?Be serious SuzyDavedisease. There are 3 demons that few have anything good to say anything about here, Bugliosi, Watson and Kasabian. That's fairly standard across TLB sites. They're mainly seen as the fairytale spinner, the demented killer who spouts off about God and the dog that got away with murder or at the very least took part in actions she's never told of.I don't know what you said that got deleted so I can't comment.

The key impact of both crimes is that Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Felony Murder do not require the defendant to actually kill anyone or even be present when someone is murdered to be guilty of murder. That, of course, rather obviously is directed at Charles Manson.